Feast Days And Sabbath Days. Are They Still Binding?

[Castaway57]

Castaway:​

Your point does have merit but not in this statement:​

The OT typical system had serious limitations. . .​

This OT typical is a made up excuse by all churches by not dealing with the human fact. Animals were picked to die in our place.

The world has become a lawless place. If what we had was all truth then Rev 3:15-17 is a lie!
​

Peace unto you,
stinsonmarri

Animals did not "die in our place;" and by the looks of this post; you have a poor understanding of Rev 3, but be that as it may I did point out briefly how the NT recognized the fact that the OT sacrificial system, including sacrifices and holy days, was an inferior system; if the Bible says it, who are we to deny it?

The new system established through Christ brought into existence the new covenant initially announced by Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–12). The new covenant is superior to the old because its mediator is the Son of God (Heb. 8:6; 9:15). He who is human (Heb. 2:5–18) and divine (Heb. 1:1–4) is able to bring God and humans into a covenant relationship. He is also the sacrificial victim through whose blood the covenant was ratified (Heb. 12:24; 9:15–18). Christ is called the “surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 7:22) because He guarantees the permanency of the new covenant. The contrast between the two covenants leads the apostle into a discussion of the sanctuaries under each of the covenants (Heb. 8; 9).

It is important to note how the author of Hebrews follows the Exodus pattern: redemption, covenant, and sanctuary. The sanctuary of the new covenant is superior because it is heavenly (Heb. 8:1, 2; 9:24). Although the OT system pointed forward to the heavenly; it was, still earthly.

Actually, Hebrews relies on Exodus 25:9, 40, finding there a reference to God’s true heavenly sanctuary, which antedates the earthly. The heavenly sanctuary served as a model for the earthly, which could be called the antitype (Heb. 9:24, Gr. antitypos). Inasmuch as the tabernacle is a copy of the original, it is inferior, described as a “shadow” of the heavenly. As a copy and shadow, the earthly sanctuary pointed to the heavenly one and so testified to its own transitoriness (verse 11).

In Hebrews the heavenly sanctuary is real; Christ entered there after His ascension (4:14–16; 6:19, 20; 9:24; 10:12) and is performing a priestly work there (7:27). For the apostle, Christ is a divine person who took on humanity and became one of us (2:14), suffered under the pressure of temptations (5:7, 8), died on the cross (12:2), ascended to heaven (4:14), and entered into the heavenly sanctuary (9:24). For the author of Hebrews the reality of all these experiences is unquestionable.

 

[Stan Tei]

http://www.normanbradley.info/Exposing_the_Skeleton_in_the_SDA_Closet_of_1888.pdf

 

[stinsonmarri]

Castaway:​

My response to your comment;​

Animals did not "die in our place;" and by the looks of this post; you have a poor understanding of Rev 3, but be that as it may I did point out briefly how the NT recognized the fact that the OT sacrificial system, including sacrifices and holy days, was an inferior system; if the Bible says it, who are we to deny it?​

When Adam, according to ELOHIM’S special directions, made an offering for sin, it was to him a most painful ceremony. His hand must be raised to take life, which ELOHIM alone could give, and make an offering for sin. It was the first time he had witnessed death. As he looked upon the bleeding victim, writhing in the agonies of death, he was to look forward by faith to the SON of ELOHIM, whom the victim prefigured, who was to die man’s sacrifice. ​

This ceremonial offering, ordained of ELOHIM, was to be a perpetual reminder to Adam of his guilt, and also a penitential acknowledgment of his sin. This act of taking life gave Adam a deeper and more perfect sense of his transgression, which nothing less than the death of ELOHIM’s dear Son could expiate. He marveled at the infinite goodness and matchless love which would give such a ransom to save the guilty. As Adam was slaying the innocent victim, it seemed to him that he was shedding the blood of the SON of ELOHIM by his own hand. He knew that if he had remained steadfast to ELOHIM, and true to HIS Holy Law, there would have been no death of beast nor of man. 1SP p. 53

Concerning the Law proclaimed from Sinai, Nehemiah says, "THOU camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from Heaven, and gavest them Right Judgments, and True Laws, Good Statutes and Commandments." Nehemiah 9:13. And Paul, "the apostle to the Gentiles," declares, "The Law is Holy, and the Commandment Holy, and Just, and Good." Romans 7:12.

As th Bible presents two Laws, one Changeless and Eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are Two Covenants. The Covenant of Grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the fall there was given a Divine Promise that the SEED of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. To all men this Covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of ELOHIM for future obedience through faith in YAHSHUA. It also promised them Eternal Life on condition of fidelity to ELOHIM’S Law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of Salvation. ​

This same Covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, "In thy seedshall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Genesis 22:18. This promise pointed to YAHSHUA. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in YAHSHUA for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of ELOHIM’S Law. YAHWEH appeared unto Abraham, and said, "I am the ALMIGHTY ELOHIM; walk before ME, and be thou perfect." Genesis 17:1. The Testimony of ELOHIM concerning HIS faithful servant was, "Abraham obeyed MY Voice, and kept MY Charge, MY Commandments, MY Statutes, and MY Laws." Genesis 26:5. And YAHWEH declared to him, "I will establish MY Covenant between ME and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a ELOHIM unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7.

Though this Covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of YAHSHUA. It had existed by the promise of ELOHIM since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by YAHSHUA, it is called a New Covenant. The law of ELOHIM was the basis of this Covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the Divine Will, placing them where they could obey ELOHIM’S Law.

The Principles of HIS Government are the same. For all proceed from HIM "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17. PP p. 365, 370, 371, 373, 374

It is clear that you truly do not understand about the Covenant which by the way is the Law, Judgment and Statues. A contract of all kind is a covenant Castaway which contains the outline Laws and then the contract gives you both statues laws and judgment laws. A contract breaks down into detail certain times that you are required to do things and how you are suppose to follow the agreement you made to a tee. The old and new Covenant was the same Covenant only it needed YAHSHUA'S death to ratify it that Covenant was renew with Adam (because he had broken the original one between ELOHIM and his seed). The Covenant was renew with an additional stipulation or promise, namely Grace. Grace through blood was a merit given Adam, and given to Abraham again to bring men back to the FATHER! This is and has always been the Everlasting Covenant. You are confused with a temporary covenant that wise given only to Israel like when you are given a temporary tag for your car. The real tag is a plate as the real Covenant came through the death of YAHSHUA! If you would read Ex 24:5-8 that covenant was written by Moses in a book and was sprinkle by the blood of animals. This covenant could not take away sin and was suppose to stay in place to real Covenant was ratified. However, the broke the contract over and over! EGW used the word "typical," which she did not understand still using things from the Protestant ideology and not ELOHIM. However, she understood the Everlasting Covenant but you do not!!!! Animals died because of the blood, something had to die and they did until the Real LAMB'S blood was shed.​

Finally show me anywhere in the Bible that Holy Days were called inferior! Just give me a Scripture when you make a statement like that! The Sabbath is also a Holy Day and sacrifices were done on this day as well,​

Blessing and Happy Sabbath,​

stinsonmarri

 

[stinsonmarri]

Stan: I have it and already know that the Church was given the Holy Appointed Set Times by Jones and Waggoner. They rejected it because the fail to understand Paul writings to the Galatians. EGW even admitted she had lost some of writings on the very subject they were bringing. The Church covered up a lot of information the subject because Uriah Smith and others went against EGW. He even would not let her write in the RH. That is why she was shipped to down under and the book Testimonies to the Minister came out. This because had at one time accepted the Day of Atonement but have rejected it as well. Now many have even turn away from the Investigated Judgment!

Blessings and Happy Sabbath

 

[Castaway57]

Castaway:​

It is clear that you truly do not understand about the Covenant which by the way is the Law, Judgment and Statues.


Blessing and Happy Sabbath,​

stinsonmarri

Rom 7:12 is talking about the ten commandments; and the OC & NC are not the law itself; only two different agreements between God and His people concerning the ten commandments.

A covenant is not a law; it is a voluntary agreement/contract. By saying that any of the OT feasts or sacrifices are still binding for Christians to day; you deny the need for Christ and Him crucified; and that is the spirit of antichrist speaking.

The Bible is clear: "Christ died once for all;" and anyone who denies that He is come in the flesh [to die for our sins], speaks the message and language of antichrist.

 

[Stan Tei]

The Feasts are not sacrifices. The Apostle Paul kept the Feasts. He would not talk in one way and walk in a different way. What he advised others, he abided in keeping himself. For hundreds of years following the cross, the early church believers kept the fourteenth day of the first month as did the apostles. This is attested to in history and is known as the Quartodeciman Controversy. There is no evidence in the early church writers that the Feast days ended at the cross. That is a far more recent invention, due to the illegitimate change made by the Catholic church around 140 - 320 AD. Protestantism had inherited this (lack of) practice from the Catholic church and the Reformation had not yet been completed to restore this lost doctrine. History and Scripture agree on this.

 

[Castaway57]

The Feasts are not sacrifices. The Apostle Paul kept the Feasts. He would not talk in one way and walk in a different way.

You have provided no scripture to back up what you just said so that alone would cast doubt on what you say here about Paul. However; you need to go back and read what I posted. I did not say that the feasts were "sacrifices." I said "feasts and sacrifices."

Aaronic Priesthood​

1.Must be human (Heb. 5:1)​

2.Must be appointed by God (verse 4)​

3.Must sympathize with sinners through self-control (verse 2;
metriopatheō, “moderate one’s passions”)​

4.Must have something to offer: blood of animals (verses 1, 2)​

5.Must officiate in a sanctuary: an earthly one (Heb. 9:1–7)​

Christ’s Priesthood​

1.Christ was human (Heb. 2:14) as well as divine (1:1–3)​

2.Christ was appointed by His Father (5:5, 6)​

3.Christ sympathizes (sympatheō, “be compassionate”) with sinners (4:15)​

4.Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice (7:27)​

5. Christ officiates in the heavenly sanctuary (8:2)​

b.Christ’s priesthood and Melchizedek. While the Aaronic priesthood prefigured Christ’s priestly activity, the NT leaves no doubt that the new priesthood would do away with the old. The old covenant would be replaced by the new, the typical sacrifices would be concluded by the true, and the Levitical priesthood would give place to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:11, 12, 18, 19; 8:13; 10:3–10). Thus, the priesthood of Christ was not only the antitype of the Aaronic priesthood, but also the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy found in Psalm 110:4, in the light of which Hebrews examines Genesis 14:17–20. In the discussion of the priesthood of Melchizedek, the superiority of Christ’s priesthood is demonstrated (Heb. 7:1–28).​

The incident narrated in Genesis 14 provides information to show that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to that of Aaron. This is demonstrated first, by noting that Abraham gave his tithe to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:2, 4–6). Second, by blessing Abraham, Melchizedek showed himself superior to Abraham (verses 6, 7). Third, the priesthood of Melchizedek remains forever (verse 3). In Hebrews Melchizedek foreshadows the priesthood of Christ (verse 3).

The prediction of Jesus’ priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek indicated that the Aaronic priesthood was transitory (verses 11–14), and perfection—that is, salvation from sin—was not possible through the Aaronic priesthood. And therefore we need none of the sacrifices or feasts associated thereof; because all they do is point to the One who made the sacrifice that they all point to.

This meant that God intended to change the OT priestly law, making it possible for one who was not a descendant of Aaron to become high priest. Once the new High Priest after the order of Melchizedek arrived, the typical priesthood would end (verses 15–19). Christ became priest, not on the basis of genealogical ties, but by a divine declaration. His priesthood is permanent because His life is indestructible; and His Sacrifice is "once for all."
​

In reality Jesus Christ is the only true priestly mediator between God and the human race. The priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek serve only as role models/examples of Christ’s effective ministry. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6).​

The superiority of Christ’s priesthood is based on its establishment by a divine oath. It is also superior because “he holds his priesthood permanently, … for ever” (Heb. 7:24). His priesthood is, therefore, unchangeable. Finally, Christ is a superior priest because He is sinless and does not have to offer sacrifices to expiate His own sins (verses 26, 27). His ministry is totally on behalf of others (verse 25).http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn2

 

[Castaway57]

Stan: I have it and already know that the Church was given the Holy Appointed Set Times by Jones and Waggoner. They rejected it because the fail to understand Paul writings to the Galatians. EGW even admitted she had lost some of writings on the very subject they were bringing. The Church covered up a lot of information the subject because Uriah Smith and others went against EGW. He even would not let her write in the RH. That is why she was shipped to down under and the book Testimonies to the Minister came out. This because had at one time accepted the Day of Atonement but have rejected it as well. Now many have even turn away from the Investigated Judgment!

Blessings and Happy Sabbath

LOL; how convenient. Stick a couple of heinous "coverups" by the church in there with no proof of course. That is "truth" for sure.

 

[Castaway57]

Finally show me anywhere in the Bible that Holy Days were called inferior! Just give me a Scripture when you make a statement like that! The Sabbath is also a Holy Day and sacrifices were done on this day as well,​

Blessing and Happy Sabbath,​

stinsonmarri

There is so much scripture, which I keep showing you; but you are choosing to reject it. There's nothing I can do about that:

Exo_20:8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." The word "day" here is in the singular tense, meaning just what it says: "sabbath day." As in one particular day. The seventh day Sabbath. The word "it" as in "keep it holy;" is also a clear indication of the singular use of Sabbath Day.

A couple of verses later, God states clearly He makes a difference between "day" and "days"

Exo_20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Therefore, when we look at the verse you throw into question, and twist out of context; we read:

Col_2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

It is becoming more obvious that the singular "Sabbath DAY" is not being referred to in the admonition by Paul about judging.
​

Better Blood/Sacrifice​

The limitations of the Israelite economy became most evident in the area of the effectiveness of the sacrificial system. None of the daily sacrifices had the power to take away sin and impurity; neither did the Day of Atonement sacrifices (Heb. 10:4). Christ’s blood is superior because it deals with human uncleanness (sin) and alienation from God by cleansing the conscience (Heb. 9:14) and perfecting the worshiper (Heb. 10:14). This perfection is to be understood as the removal of all obstacles that hinder a person’s access to God. The blood of Jesus cleanses from sin (1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 7:14), in a once-and-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 10:12).

Paul here, in Col 2, doubtless points to false teachers who among other things insisted on the binding claims of the Jewish ceremonial system.

In meat, or in drink. Or, “in eating or in drinking.” These words doubtless refer to the meal and drink offerings presented by the Israelites in compliance with the sacrificial system, which was codified in the ceremonial law. Some have erroneously concluded that Paul’s statement implies the abolition of the prohibition against the eating of foods declared as unclean (see Lev. 11). That this cannot be the apostle’s meaning is clear from the following observations:​

(1) The meat and drink are declared to be a shadow of Christ (Col. 2:17); that is, they point forward to Christ’s sacrifice and ministry. The ceremonial meal and drink offerings clearly belong in this category, but the prohibition against unclean foods does not.​

(2) The prohibition not to eat certain meats antedates the ceremonial law (see on Gen. 7:2). Hence, certain animals are to be viewed as unclean for reasons other than ceremonial. The indulgence of the appetite by eating impure foods frustrates the perfect designs of the Creator (see PP 308; 2T 70). The apostle is not giving permission to the Colossian Christians to eat and drink what they want, disregarding all criticism. What he is saying is that Christians are no longer obliged to carry out the requirements of the ceremonial law. These meal and drink offerings have met their fulfillment in Christ.​

Holyday. The ceremonial ordinances contain commandments for the observance of various holy days—the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles (see Lev. 23).​

New moon. The first day of each month, or new moon day (see Num. 10:10; 28:11; cf. 1 Sam. 20:5; Isa. 66:23).​

Sabbath days. Gr. sabbata. This may represent either a genuine plural of the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata’, a singular form. Hence sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does represent a singular (Matt. 28:1; etc.). Either form may be adopted here, for the interpretation of the passage does not depend upon whether the reading is “sabbath days,” or “a sabbath.” The type of sabbath under consideration is shown by the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” (Col. 2:17). The weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8–11; PP 48). Hence, the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment, but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His kingdom (see Lev. 23:6–8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).​

17. Which are a shadow. This phrase is the key to the understanding of v. 16. All the items the apostle lists in v. 16 are “shadows,” or types, symbolizing the reality that is Christ. A shadow has no substance; it is cast by something substantial. Compare the use of the word “shadow” in Heb. 8:5 and 10:1. The Jewish ceremonies were shadows cast by heavenly realities. Christ’s life, ministry, and kingdom are the reality. The portrayal of this in the ceremonial law was only the shadow.​

On this passage Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, well observes:​

“There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. … He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”​

Body is of Christ. In contrast with the shadow, Jesus is the fullness of reality. It is to Him that every type points, and in Him that every symbol reaches its fullness. In finding Him, Christians turn their backs upon the typical, shadowy outlines, walking now in the fullness of the divine Presence.​

In these verses Paul has completely removed the ground from beneath the feet of the Judaizing false teachers. They advocated a return to Judaic ceremonial requirements. The apostle meets their arguments by asserting that the shadows have served their function now that Christ, the reality, has come. In all this argument Paul is in no way minimizing the claims of the Decalogue or of the seventh-day Sabbath. The moral law is eternal and perfect (see on Rom. 14:1; Eph. 2:15).
​

 

[Stan Tei]

But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast in Jerusalem. Acts 18:21

Paul Keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread With the Philippians
And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread. Acts 20:6

Paul Keeping the Feast of Weeks With the Ephesians
But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. 1 Corinthians 16:8

 

[Castaway57]

But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast in Jerusalem. Acts 18:21

This feat was the passover, since that often went by the name of the feast: the why he must by all means keep it, was not because it was obligatory upon him; nor did he always observe it, as appears from his long stay at Corinth, and other places; and besides, as a Christian, he had nothing to do with it; but either because of his vow, Act_18:18 or because he knew he should have an opportunity of preaching the Gospel to great numbers; the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions omit this clause!

Paul Keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread With the Philippians
And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread. Acts 20:6

And we sailed away from Philippi,.... Which was in Macedonia, from whence they came in a straight course by Samothracia, over the Hellespont, to Troas, where the above six persons were waiting for them: and they set sail

after the days of unleavened bread; or the passover; which is mentioned only to observe the time of year when this voyage was taken; and not to suggest to us that Paul and his company stayed at Philippi, and kept this feast there; for the passover was only kept at Jerusalem, and besides was now abolished, and not to be observed by Christians!

Paul Keeping the Feast of Weeks With the Ephesians
But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. 1 Corinthians 16:8

1 Corinthians 16:8
But I will tarry at Ephesus till Pentecost. The feast of weeks, or of harvest, which was fifty days from the passover; which though abrogated at the death of Christ, was observed by the Jews, and is mentioned by the apostle, not as a festival that the Christians were obliged to regard, or did regard, but as pointing out the time he intended to stay at Ephesus: and we elsewhere read, that he was greatly desirous of being at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, Act_20:16 not to keep it, but because there would then be abundance of people from all parts there, to whom he should have an opportunity of preaching the Gospel.

 

[Stan Tei]

The MEANINGS of the names of the Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, tells the story of salvation.

The constellations of the MAZZEROTH (aka Zodiac) tells the story of salvation.

The furniture within the Tabernacle of the Wilderness after the exodus, tells the story of salvation.

The collective Yearly Feasts and Sabbaths, tells the WHOLE story of salvation.

The sacrifices, points to the one primary Sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

The cross is not the WHOLE story of salvation. It may be the most important part, but it is not the whole story.

From the entrance of sin in this world, to the end of sin in the final glorification in the new earth and the new Eden restored, God has given us object lessons of the great plan of salvation.

The most proactive of these is the keeping of the Feasts.

The reason why the arguments are turned to dispose of these Feasts from the Christian experience is not emanating from any Divine directive, but of the powers of evil that wishes to deprive mankind of the knowledge gained by observing them.

It is obvious that the practice of the Lord's Supper as it is observed today, (done by our Lord ON the day of Passover) when compared to the manner of its keeping by the Hebrews, shows that it is vastly stripped of its symbolical meaning.

In the Hebrew practice, a piece of the unleavened bread is eaten by the Father, another piece is broken. (the broken body of our Lord) and another piece is hidden under a pillow. (in Hebrew, a rock is also called a pillow) and the children go and seek for their bread (Lord) and find it behind the "rock" and "resurrect" it.

All of this is symbolic of the beating, death and resurrection of our unleavened sinless Savior.

What meaning is left for the modern Christian practice of Communion or the Eucharist of today?

But because it is poo-pooed away as having been abolished, the Christian experience of today is robbed of the true meaning that God gave this sacrament.

What other GOOD things has God given us that have been obliterated by the so-called Christian of today, because of the lies that they have been taught that have been infiltrating into the church by the devil?
Jeremiah 16: 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Ask any keeper of the Feasts if his experience in his salvation is made more rich because of them... I know the answer.

Malachi 4
1. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that
cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave
them neither root nor branch.
4. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded
unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the LORD:

 

[Castaway57]

The reason why the arguments are turned to dispose of these Feasts from the Christian experience is not emanating from any Divine directive, but of the powers of evil that wishes to deprive mankind of the knowledge gained by observing them.

It is obvious that the practice of the Lord's Supper as it is observed today, (done by our Lord ON the day of Passover) when compared to the manner of its keeping by the Hebrews, shows that it is vastly stripped of its symbolical meaning.

I have experienced a long list of people on the internet, and off line who have shoved verses at me telling me how I will be burned or some such thing just because I dont believe like them. You are just another one in the long line up.

Again; you provide no scripture to back up your assertions so it's easy for you to say whatever you want without being accountable for it.

"The powers of evil" here are the voices that wish to do away with the importance of "Christ and Him crucified;" by slipping in a few extra feasts and holy days that Christians "must keep." And by the way the Lords Supper is not practiced "on the Passover" in most faith traditions. Adventists do not teach that.

I gave quite a few scriptures above, none of which you have addressed or disproven; and if you think "the zodiac" depicts salvation; you are not speaking with Bible authority in any way.

 

[Castaway57]

The cross is not the WHOLE story of salvation. It may be the most important part, but it is not the whole story.


But because it is poo-pooed away as having been abolished, the Christian experience of today is robbed of the true meaning that God gave this sacrament.

What other GOOD things has God given us that have been obliterated by the so-called Christian of today, because of the lies that they have been taught that have been infiltrating into the church by the devil?

Ask any keeper of the Feasts if his experience in his salvation is made more rich because of them... I know the answer.

No; you actually dont understand it at all if you talk like this - especially with self-important phrases like "so called Christians." Who do you think you are, compared to us?

A person's experience of salvation is "made more rich" by these feasts and sacrifices, not because they "keep them" but because they study them out of God's Word, and see how they all point to the "once for all sacrifice" of Christ, and anything that leads us to this is going to enrich our experience; but because of what Christ has done; it is not mandatory for us to do these things. It's not always wrong for us to do them either; it's just not mandatory because of what Christ has done, and because anything that the Bible considered a type of shadow is no longer needed because Christ has taken care of that need.

 

[stinsonmarri]

The Feasts are not sacrifices. The Apostle Paul kept the Feasts. He would not talk in one way and walk in a different way. What he advised others, he abided in keeping himself. For hundreds of years following the cross, the early church believers kept the fourteenth day of the first month as did the apostles. This is attested to in history and is known as the Quartodeciman Controversy. There is no evidence in the early church writers that the Feast days ended at the cross. That is a far more recent invention, due to the illegitimate change made by the Catholic church around 140 - 320 AD. Protestantism had inherited this (lack of) practice from the Catholic church and the Reformation had not yet been completed to restore this lost doctrine. History and Scripture agree on this.

Stan:

That is so True but you see Castaway as others who have joined the SDA Church and moved up the rank to be leaders rather keep the Papacy's unholy pagan days. The church is keeping Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Valentine all are unholy appointed set times. These times are pagan which follow the rule of Law for set time.

And he shall speak great words against the MOST HIGH, and shall wear out the saints of the MOST HIGH, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dan 7:25​

How can Paul keep the Holy Appointed Set Times but yet don't keep them ridiculous? He was talking about the handwritings of Moses the ELOHIM told him to write in a book. These were the sacrificial laws dealing with how and when to sacrifices certain, including on the Sabbath. It also deal with the priestly services or forms of worship in the Temple. So they make up words like ceremonial sabbaths that are not in the Bible. Even the Catholic boast that The Sabbath and the annual Holy Appointed Set Times they have power to change. YAHWEH clearly state that these days are HIS and not any men including the Jews. So how again can Paul say something that belongs to YAHWEH you are not suppose to serve? Lev 23:2 These SDA only accept the OT when it is convenient to them like tithes. This two is not to pay the ministers but to bring into house for meat. I never read that a minister was to be paid from the tithe, neither was the Levites. Paul was a tent maker and he collected the tithe to take to other for use.

Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

 

[Castaway57]

Stan:

That is so True but you see Castaway as others who have joined the SDA Church and moved up the rank to be leaders rather keep the Papacy's unholy pagan days. The church is keeping Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Valentine all are unholy appointed set times. These times are pagan which follow the rule of Law for set time.

And he shall speak great words against the MOST HIGH, and shall wear out the saints of the MOST HIGH, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dan 7:25​

How can Paul keep the Holy Appointed Set Times but yet don't keep them ridiculous?

You dont know the first thing about me. I have not "moved up the rank to be a leader!" There are some individuals who participate in some of these holidays, our church accepts people at whatever level they are at, but our official teachings say the total opposite of what you are being so bellicose about here.

 

[Castaway57]

Stan:

How can Paul keep the Holy Appointed Set Times but yet don't keep them ridiculous?

You cant prove from scripture that Paul did this. I did show from scripture, just above, why its not true. You are welcome to show why I am wrong.

 

[Stan Tei]

Quartodeciman Controversy... (When, who?)

 

[stinsonmarri]

Castaway:​

My response to your comment;

Rom 7:12 is talking about the ten commandments; and the OC & NC are not the law itself; only two different agreements between God and His people concerning the ten commandments. A covenant is not a law; it is a voluntary agreement/contract. By saying that any of the OT feasts or sacrifices are still binding for Christians to day; you deny the need for Christ and Him crucified; and that is the spirit of antichrist speaking.​

Where did you see the word ten in that text? It said the same thing in Ex. 24:12​

And YAHWEH said unto Moses, Come up to ME into the Mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Ex 24:12

Wherefore the Law is Holy, and the Commandment Holy, and Just, and Good.

But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YAHWEH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their ELOHIM, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know YAHWEH: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith YAHWEH: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jeremiah31:33, 34.​

They did not keep the Covenant of ELOHIM; They refused to walk in HIS Law. Psalm 78:10 ​

I am not trying to insult you but do you know what words mean? These words are in the dictionary!

Covenant: Noun - an agreement, a Law a formal agreement, contract, or promise in writing. Verb - agree by lease, deed, or other legal contract Synonyms: noun. agreement - contract - pact - treaty - compact verb. contract. Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)​

Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Synonyms - rule - statute - right - act - jurisprudence

Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

 

[Castaway57]

Castaway:​

My response to your comment;

Rom 7:12 is talking about the ten commandments; and the OC & NC are not the law itself; only two different agreements between God and His people concerning the ten commandments. A covenant is not a law; it is a voluntary agreement/contract. By saying that any of the OT feasts or sacrifices are still binding for Christians to day; you deny the need for Christ and Him crucified; and that is the spirit of antichrist speaking.​

Where did you see the word ten in that text? It said the same thing in Ex. 24:12​

They did not keep the Covenant of GOD; They refused to walk in HIS Law. Psalm 78:10
I am not trying to insult you but do you know what words mean? These words are in the dictionary!

Covenant: Noun - an agreement, a Law a formal agreement, contract, or promise in writing. Verb - agree by lease, deed, or other legal contract Synonyms: noun. agreement - contract - pact - treaty - compact verb. contract. Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)​

Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Synonyms - rule - statute - right - act - jurisprudence

Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

For someone who is supposed to be a "recognized" Bible scholar; you are not doing so well here. Your use of Psalms 78:10 is one of the best examples of that I have seen yet. Are you seriously trying to use this text to "prove" how the law and the covenant are [allegedly] the same thing?